L. OPPENHEIM AND COMPANY Vs. MAHOMED HANEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, allowing an appeal from a decree made by Coutts Trotter J. in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the same Court.

(2.) THE appellants are merchants carrying on business in London, and the original respondent (who has died during the pendency of this appeal and is represented by the present respondents) was a merchant carrying on business in Madras.

(3.) CERTAIN skins were shipped to London, and the appellants paid to the respondent 1495l. 15s. 4d. in respect of those skins. When the skins arrived in London, the appellants alleged that they were of inferior quality and refused to accept delivery. They were ultimately sold, with the consent of the respondent, at the price of 1242l. 10s., thus leaving a deficiency of 253l. 5s. 4d., which the appellants demanded from the respondent and which the respondent refused to pay. Thereupon the appellants, in pursuance of the arbitration clause contained in the contract and of the English Arbitration Act, appointed Mr. R.H. Pringle as arbitrator on their behalf in the difference which had arisen, and caused the respondent to be served at Madras with a notice, dated February 3, 1916, whereby they informed him of the appointment of Mr. Pringle and required him, within seven days from the service of the notice, to name to the appellants or their agents in Madras an arbitrator to act on their behalf in London in the matter of the difference which had arisen, the notice stating that otherwise the difference would stand referred to Mr. Pringle alone as sole arbitrator. The respondent refused to appoint an arbitrator to act on his behalf or to take part in the arbitration; and thereupon Mr. Pringle, at the request of the appellants, proceeded with the arbitration. He gave no opportunity to either party to appear and give evidence before him, but having read the contract and correspondence and inspected the skins, he made his award in writing dated July 11, 1916, and thereby awarded that the respondent should pay to the appellants the sum of 258l. 5s. 9d., with interest and costs.